Support NeoGAF

[Father_Brain]

Unbelievable.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...0050616/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_pentagon_dc

"We invite more members to go down to Guantanamo and see what's going on, because what's going on down there is not the way it's being described by certain members of Congress," chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told a briefing.

"And the way they are describing it is unfortunate, and in some places I believe those people will regret having made those kind of comments," Di Rita added.

 

[sprsk]

severed deer head

 

[Dan]

Last night's Daily Show aired footage of a Congressman defending Guantanamo Bay by actually bringing and displaying samples of the detainees' meals.

"Don't look over there at the abuse, just look at how nice this meal is. We give them two types of fruit. TWO TYPES OF FRUIT! Now that's nice treatment."

 

[Guileless]

Father Brain, do you think that a Pentagon spokesman would make public threats to a US Senator prior to ordering a strike team to storm his house and shoot him in the head?

Or maybe he meant "regret" in the sense that people who haven't visited the prison and are comparing it to death factories that churned out tens of millions of corpses may have overstated things and would regret their choice of words? Which one of those is more likely?

My apologies to anyone whose delicate anti-Bush sensibilites were offended by reading this post.

 

[ronito]

You know kids let this be a lesson to you. When you grow up and have your own camp to put prisoners of war, keep it far FAR away from homeland. That way you can do whatever you want with the prisoners without pesky journalists.

 

[Firest0rm]

You know kids let this be a lesson to you. When you grow up and have your own camp to put prisoners of war, keep it far FAR away from homeland. That way you can do whatever you want with the prisoners without pesky journalists.

Like Syria!

 

[ronito]

Or maybe he meant "regret" in the sense that people who haven't visited the prison and are comparing it to death factories that churned out tens of millions of corpses may have overstated things and would regret their choice of words? Which one of those is more likely?

For once Guileless and I agree! You saw it here first!

Honestly all snarkyness aside, comparing Gitmo to Gulags and Pol Pot is either A.)A scare tactic or B.) Made by someone who didn't study enough about the Gulags or Pol Pot. Or both.

Now, by and large, I don't agree with what's going on at Gitmo, but comparing it to russian work camps is not the way to get that to change. It's only inflamitory and really not a good analogy. Now to say, "Hey we're doing things here, that I don't think we as America should do." Would be a much better way to start a dialogue.

 

[Dan]

I'd certainly agree that Durbin's comments comparing it to Nazi and Soviet camps is absurb and unhelpful.

Still, I have to laugh at this encouragement for Congressmen to visit Gitmo and see for themselves. Yeah, right, like they're really going to see the true day-in-day-out way of life and processes of interrogation. That's like inviting my parents to check out my apartment for a day to show that I keep it clean.

 

[Mandark]

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot.

If you really care about torture or illegal imprisonment, don't be a pansy who grasps at her pearls every time someone uses strong language to criticize it.

 

[Phoenix]

Abu Ghraib != Guantanamo

Strange that it took so long for someone to say that And that after you said it people are still talking about Gitmo. Maybe the thread author didn't RTFA?

 

[boredJonathan]

Or maybe he meant "regret" in the sense that people who haven't visited the prison and are comparing it to death factories that churned out tens of millions of corpses may have overstated things and would regret their choice of words? Which one of those is more likely?

When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:

On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

Call me crazy but the only thing I regret is that we are focusing on the wrong part of Durbin's speech. If you read that paragraph, I honestly hope you wish it were rather Nazis or some account of Gulags rather than sactioned American prision treatment. That is why I think Durbin should be commended for what he said.

Once againg though, the Bush administration and the echo chamber that the Republican party controls has turned this into a debate not about how absolutely reprehensible the actions of this administration's policies being carried out at Guantanamo are, but instead focused all attention on a comment that when taken out of context. Once you read over what prompted Durbin to even make these accusations, which not suprisingly I have yet to see quoted in any news story, his comments seem spot on and should shame the American public that they have an administration that endoreses such inhumane treatment of already captured enemies.

 

[DCharlie]

Pol Pot liked Rap? Weird!

 

[videogamer]

Like Syria!

Add Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Pakistan to the list.

 

[Macam]

I think the gist of the comment is simply that the Pentagon is interpreting the accusations as pertaining to the entire camp and they're trying (in a foolish example, if anything) to show to Congressmen that it's not. Fair enough, but that's beating around the bush for the most part. To me, the threat, if any, is more indicative of the right wing spin machine that's been so effective thus far. I imagine if anything, we'll be seeing those Congressmen who are up for re-election face a giant smear campaign to portray them as un-American in their districts.

It doesn't disprove anything as previously noted. These things obviously happened and there's been a failure to responsibly address those liable for the mistreatment of the detainees. Whether it's continuing or not is secondary to the fact that no real substantial action has been taken to address the problem at its root, and a large part of that stems from the administrations haggling over semantics.

Guileless: The comparisons are obviously not aimed at whole comparisons of the two. As Amnesty International clarified with their initial comparison to gulags, it's not a direct head-to-head comparison but one that's intended to draw paralles between certain aspects. Even then, comparisons are wholly besides the point.

 

[Shinobi]

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is [b
a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot[/b].

If you really care about torture or illegal imprisonment, don't be a pansy who grasps at her pearls every time someone uses strong language to criticize it.

Preach the fucking word.

It's times like these I wish I was the Batman...

 

[Macam]

It would appear that a Halliburton subsidary will be expanding Guatanamo to the tune of $30m in a contract worth up to $500m.

 

[Father_Brain]

Normally, I read the articles closer than that. Sorry.

 

[Xenon]

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot.

If you really care about torture or illegal imprisonment, don't be a pansy who grasps at her pearls every time someone uses strong language to criticize it.

Yes because using such loaded will lead to meaningful discussion. If this shit was being thrown by the Bush admin you would be the first in line to call BS. To just say that these obviously inflammatory remarks are trivial is ignorant. If those facts you sited are so important why can't they talk about them instead of spewing this obvious propaganda.


I think the people are so emotional over Bush that they really have lost perspective. Any time I hear shit like "gulag or "Hitler" it really makes it hard for me to listen to anything else they have to say. All the BS being tossed back and forth by both parties is akin to a couple finding new more extreme methods to piss each other off. First they start out slow with maybe "bitch" or "asshole." But, once those lose their effect they move onto adding "FU" and then the C word comes out and everything is fair game. This is what is going on the press and the political system in America. We as a people are desensitized so the media needs to amplify things to get our attention. Same goes for our politicians. Sad part is the whole world is listening to this shit and buying it as fact.

Is Guantanamo comparable to a Gulag, FUCK NO! I have a problem with someone saying that. If you want to dismiss me as stupid fine, have fun in your 2D world where Bush is Hitler. Just because this shit is being hurled at the people you oppose doesn't mean you should ignore it. If anything this shit hurts your cause. It’s so much easier for those who oppose you to dismiss your arguments when people mix in extremes with valid arguments.


When Bush went on the air and used the word “evil” it pissed me off because the word is an absolute. By doing that he made it clear that he had no real idea of the enemy we face. The terrorists are not monsters bred for the sole purpose of destroying all that is good. Their reasons could fill a library. Eh fuck it lets just say they’re “evil” so much easier.

This is no different than what has been going on with a lot of the vocal opposition to Bush, calling him evil or Hitler. Making poor analogies like saying Guantanamo is like a Gulag.

Both sides are acting like neither one has a valid reason for their beliefs and actions. It is fucking stupid.

 

[MetatronM]

This is no different than what has been going on with a lot of the vocal opposition to Bush, calling him evil or Hitler. Making poor analogies like saying Guantanamo is like a Gulag.

Both sides are acting like neither one has a valid reason for their beliefs and actions. It is fucking stupid.

Please go back and reread the thread and read what Durbin ACTUALLY said.

 

[Mandark]

You don't give a shit about torture or illegal confinement.

You want people to think you give a shit.

You're trying to give the impression that you give a shit.

But the reality is you don't give a shit.

Why couldn't Amnesty International use nice words? THEY HAD BEEN USING NICE WORDS. FOR YEARS. So had the ACLU. So had many in the human rights and antiwar movements. What did this get them? Nothing. It took pictures for Abu Ghraib to make any noise, and what structural changes were made? Nothing.

So then Amnesty International uses the word "gulag" in a report and immediately it's splashed across the front pages of newspapers, and debated on cable television. Maybe you have a secret plan that would have brought rational debate on this issue to the forefront, and I'd love to hear it.

But the bottom line is when confronted with horrible acts being perpetrated RIGHT NOW by your own government, you decided the real issue was an inaccurate metaphor criticizing these actions. That tells me everything about your priorities right there.

You say this language "hurts your cause" as if you've lifted a single finger to help.

Amnesty International gives a shit. You don't.

''You asked whether they want it clear or want it blurry,'' Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said to me about the reaction of her constituents to the torture allegations that alarm her. ''I think they want it blurry.''

 

[Ned Flanders]

Damn

*applauds Mandark*

 

[Shinobi]

"I tip my hat to you sir."

 

[ballhog]

Mandark wins!

 

[Guileless]

Mandark, you are completely missing the point. Inaccurate doesn't begin to describe the metaphor. Have you read the Gulag Archipelago? If not, I'm not really interested in what you think about the accuracy of metaphors. The Soviet Union killed around 20 million of its own citizens, mostly in barely habitable areas of Siberia. They were fed just enough to be able to do slave labor. Soviet citizens were taken there on the whim of government officials.

Torture and prisoner mistreatment is reprehensible, but if you refust to recongize the vast differences between the two situations, you aren't being honest. I'm guessing it's more fun to call people cowards and fascists on the internet and bask in the inevitable applause of the like-minded than to take the time to place the referenced acts of torture by the American military in some kind of perspective.

If you cared about torture and illegal imprisonment, wouldn't you at least acknowledge that what was widely viewed as the worst regime in the world is now gone because of the American military? And wouldn't you also acknowledge the incidents of American torture for what they are, but take heart in the fact that over 100 people have been punished and investigations are still ongoing? Wouldn't you also look forward to the ultimate goal of a new government that will have constitutional protections against torture instead of a government that uses it to to overtly and unapologetically terrorize its people to keep them in line so it can continue to exist?

Or would you just look at some awful pictures, say "Bush bad" and call people who don't agree with you fascists?

 

[Dilbert]

Mandark, you are completely missing the point. Inaccurate doesn't begin to describe the metaphor.

All metaphors are BY THEIR NATURE inaccurate in some respects because they draw a comparison between CERTAIN ASPECTS of two unlike things. If you compare A to B, it can only be an EXACT comparison if A = B. (Of course, strictly speaking, a metaphor calls A by B's name. Comparison is achieved through simile, which is a different technique.)

Guantanamo is like a gulag in the sense that people who are labeled "political enemies" go there and are deprived of legal process and outside scrutiny. It is not like a gulag since no one is being worked to death. That meaning ought to have been perfectly clear to anyone who heard it, and I suspect that ANYONE claiming outrage is deliberately playing a shoot-the-messenger game.

Torture and prisoner mistreatment is reprehensible, but if you refust to recongize the vast differences between the two situations, you aren't being honest.

The treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is not the point. THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE AT ALL IS THE POINT. I don't give a fuck what they eat for dinner, since it all must taste like smoke and mirrors.

If you cared about torture and illegal imprisonment, wouldn't you at least acknowledge that what was widely viewed as the worst regime in the world is now gone because of the American military?

Who was "widely viewing [Iraq] as the worst regime in the world?" You've GOT to be kidding.

I'll quote Mandark one more time, since people have GOT to pay attention when the Bush Administration keeps starting up shell games:

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot.

This is NOT about the living conditions of prisoners or the Koran or any of that shit designed to distract you. This is about illegal incarceration and a complete failure of the American political system to stop the executive branch from doing something illegal.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

Comparing Gitmo to a gulag is stupid. Period.

To not recognize that there are some things going on down there that, at the very least, are illegal, is also stupid. Period.


The quandry that we find ourselves in is that we are like to think that we hold ourselves to a higher level of respect toward human rights, yet we are fighting a war against an enemy who doesn't seem to hold human rights in the same regard, nor treat others in any humane way, whether they are enemy soldiers or innocent civilians that they kidnap and use in their own way. I know two wrongs don't make a right, but this is the kind of thing that the military, and the public in general, are struggling with.

 

[AssMan]

Comparing Gitmo to a gulag is stupid. Period.

It's just the liberal media acting like ignorant fools as usual. They don't mind starting riots and getting our troops into more dangerous situations. Pretty sad.

 

[Dilbert]

It's just the liberal media acting like ignorant fools as usual. They don't mind starting riots and getting our troops into more dangerous situations. Pretty sad.

What the FUCK.

 

[AssMan]

What the FUCK.

POST.OF.THE.DAY. :lol :lol

 

[Outdoor Miner]

It's just the liberal media acting like ignorant fools as usual. They don't mind starting riots and getting our troops into more dangerous situations. Pretty sad.

Holy fuck, trolls don't exist just in Music/Gaming topics?

 

[Xenon]

You don't give a shit about torture or illegal confinement.

You want people to think you give a shit.

You're trying to give the impression that you give a shit.

But the reality is you don't give a shit.

I don't give a shit what you believe. So go ahead paint me with that single narrow stroke that is either for or against all of what you believe is right. Yeah yeah you care and I don't bla bla bla You got me. I am pro torture. I want war. I like the thought of people suffering. I cheered when they captured ET.

Why couldn't Amnesty International use nice words? THEY HAD BEEN USING NICE WORDS. FOR YEARS. So had the ACLU. So had many in the human rights and antiwar movements. What did this get them? Nothing. It took pictures for Abu Ghraib to make any noise, and what structural changes were made? Nothing.

So then Amnesty International uses the word "gulag" in a report and immediately it's splashed across the front pages of newspapers, and debated on cable television. Maybe you have a secret plan that would have brought rational debate on this issue to the forefront, and I'd love to hear it.

So that makes it right? Yeah they got people talking about shit that is not true. No I don't have any idea how to get one started, but I never said I did

But the bottom line is when confronted with horrible acts being perpetrated RIGHT NOW by your own government, you decided the real issue was an inaccurate metaphor criticizing these actions. That tells me everything about your priorities right there.

No I responded to a single point on the issue. We have already covered the torture in other threads. This thread was about the words used to describe Guantanamo. It is also about people who disagree with the war going out of their way to use propaganda to further their point of view. Guileless hit the nail on the head when he said that people were being punished for the offenses committed at Guantanamoand and how people always seem to omit that fact when they bring this stuff up.

So if I agree with the need for Guantanamo, I am for torture? Just like you being against war means you hate freedom. Right now we are still at war. If these people were released most would return to the front of that war. If someone has a way to make sure that didn't happen I would be all for it.

You say this language "hurts your cause" as if you've lifted a single finger to help.

Dude this does not just affect me, it affects public opinion. Try to see past this message board. Our ranting on GAF have no effect on anything. You are right that I should not have stated on such a personal level.

Amnesty International gives a shit. You don't.

Give me access to their reasorces, political connections, and soapbox and the world would know what I cared about too. But I do concide Amnesty International>Xenon on a geopolitical scale. =(

This is NOT about the living conditions of prisoners or the Koran or any of that shit designed to distract you. This is about illegal incarceration and a complete failure of the American political system to stop the executive branch from doing something illegal.

Fine then, if Bush is playing a shell game then AI is giving them the ball. That is my point. Mandark is saying what they are doing is necessary to star discussions. I am am simply saying that it is the wrong discussion.

 

[Guileless]

Guantanamo is like a gulag in the sense that people who are labeled "political enemies" go there and are deprived of legal process and outside scrutiny.

The prisoners aren't "political enemies." They were either on battlefields or believed to be terrorists. They are there to prevent future terrorist attacks, not so George Bush doesn't have to answer to his political enemies. They are not deprived of outside scrutiny, as the Red Cross visits on a regular schedule.

They have not been deprived of legal process. The Supreme Court ruled last June that the prisoners at Guantanamo could seek redress in US courts and were entitled to fundamental fairness, and a federal appeals court recently ruled that the tribunals, as they are now constitued, do not pass constitutional muster. There are lots of lawsuits on their behalf in various stages of litigation. The Supreme Court will eventually hear another case and outline the standards the tribunals must meet.

I don't think Guantanamo, as it is currently organized, is the best way to deal with these 600 people. Eventually the courts and the administration will work out what exactly is needed. The current situation is the least-bad option. Simply applying American criminal law or the now anachronistic prisoner of war rules from the Geneva Convention is insufficient. We're going to have to come up with a new way to deal with people who are willing and able to kill thousands of civilians relatively cheaply and easily. Mistakes have been made and will continue to be made, but you have to be realistic. It will take time and be a messy process, but I have faith in our system to eventually arrive at a workable solution.

Who was "widely viewing [Iraq] as the worst regime in the world?" You've GOT to be kidding.

Uhh, everybody? I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I guess you can split hairs with North Korea, but are you saying that Saddam's government was not one of the worst in the world regarding torture and illegal imprisonment? And that other people agree with that statement?

 

[demon]

It's just the liberal media acting like ignorant fools as usual. They don't mind starting riots and getting our troops into more dangerous situations. Pretty sad.

You're right. I don't think the media should really report ANYTHING that may incite rioting, anger or even dissent against the administration. In fact, why can't they just RUN the media and gives us nothing but TERRY SCHIAVO SPREADING LIBERTY AND FREEDOM 24/7? Hey and that way, when the "media" sends our troops into battle and into dangerous situations, it really can be their fault!

Assfuck.

 

[Dan]

The prisoners aren't "political enemies."

Then what are they? They don't appear to be criminals considering only four of the detainees have been charged with anything. So that makes them, what, potential criminals? Now there's a scary Orwellian concept.

They were either on battlefields or believed to be terrorists.

So then they're either prisoners of war, and should therefore be treated as such under the Geneva Convention codes, or terrorists with evidence linking them to actual crimes, for which they should be put on trial ASAP. There is no reasonable defense of holding people indefinitely based solely on beliefs.

They are there to prevent future terrorist attacks

Really? Does the US government have three drugged up precogs in a basement pool at Guantanamo scanning the minds of the detainees?

 

[Instigator]

"We invite more members to go down to Guantanamo and see what's going on, because what's going on down there is not the way it's being described by certain members of Congress," chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita told a briefing.

"And the way they are describing it is unfortunate, and in some places I believe those people will regret having made those kind of comments," Di Rita added.

Discarding opportunistic politicians seeing which way the wind is blowing, some of them may actually regret not standing up against Guantanamo and other US-run jails abroad.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Father Brain, do you think that a Pentagon spokesman would make public threats to a US Senator prior to ordering a strike team to storm his house and shoot him in the head?

Or maybe he meant "regret" in the sense that people who haven't visited the prison and are comparing it to death factories that churned out tens of millions of corpses may have overstated things and would regret their choice of words? Which one of those is more likely?

My apologies to anyone whose delicate anti-Bush sensibilites were offended by reading this post.

as a jets fan, i'm offended by your eli avatar. switch back to the countdown to crisis avatar.

 

[ronito]

My whole point is probably best told by reactions to the speech, as obviously so many didn't understand it.

Biden: Tells of prisoner abuse.
Me: Yay! Finally a senator is finally paying attention!
Biden: Tells of more prisoner abuse.
Me: Yeah! Maybe this will get the attention that it needs.
Biden: Tells of even more prisoner abuse.
Me: Maybe we can start this dialogue.
Biden: Compares it to nazi camps, gulags, and Pol Pot.
Me: OH NOES!!!! He threw it all away! That greedy $#@*$#_#$!@_$!!!!

Fact is, no matter how mad you are, that it's not effectual. Now everyone is focusing on this "evil" senator instead of problem at hand, just watch the news. If he had stated the abuses, then said (like I said before) "This is something that goes against what America stands for and we need to change it. I implore the administration and senate for action." Action might've been taken, something might've been started. If nothing happened, do it again, and again and again, you'll gain support, you always do when you're right and level headed about it. But because of this it's a stillbirth and the democrats and people against this now look all unamerican. Sure we all like to talk here about how we're facists and people are suffering about this and we're dicing words. That's real swell in fantasyland. But fact is, you attack someone they will go on the defensive and you'll not get anything done. Don't believe me? Go up to someone and tell them they're a homocidal nazi then ask them for twenty bucks and let me know how that goes for you sparky.

Yes, I am concerned about the words. Because the words destroyed any chance of this guy being taken seriously. The democratic leadership had a real chance to bring a wrong to light, to be the good guy, the voice reason and bring more people out of the bush camp into the light. Instead they threw it away for sensationalistic words, made democrats look weak, made Bush's supporters more confident, and gave Fox New something to talk about until next year. That is my concern. Something needs to be done, but this wasn't it.

 

[Outdoor Miner]

My whole point is probably best told by reactions to the speech, as obviously so many didn't understand it.

Biden: Tells of prisoner abuse.
Me: Yay! Finally a senator is finally paying attention!
Biden: Tells of more prisoner abuse.
Me: Yeah! Maybe this will get the attention that it needs.
Biden: Tells of even more prisoner abuse.
Me: Maybe we can start this dialogue.
Biden: Compares it to nazi camps, gulags, and Pol Pot.
Me: OH NOES!!!! He threw it all away! That greedy $#@*$#_#$!@_$!!!!

Fact is, no matter how mad you are, that it's not effectual. Now everyone is focusing on this "evil" senator instead of problem at hand, just watch the news. If he had stated the abuses, then said (like I said before) "This is something that goes against what America stands for and we need to change it. I implore the administration and senate for action." Action might've been taken, something might've been started. If nothing happened, do it again, and again and again, you'll gain support, you always do when you're right and level headed about it. But because of this it's a stillbirth and the democrats and people against this now look all unamerican. Sure we all like to talk here about how we're facists and people are suffering about this and we're dicing words. That's real swell in fantasyland. But fact is, you attack someone they will go on the defensive and you'll not get anything done. Don't believe me? Go up to someone and tell them they're a homocidal nazi then ask them for twenty bucks and let me know how that goes for you sparky.

Yes, I am concerned about the words. Because the words destroyed any chance of this guy being taken seriously. The democratic leadership had a real chance to bring a wrong to light, to be the good guy, the voice reason and bring more people out of the bush camp into the light. Instead they threw it away for sensationalistic words, made democrats look weak, made Bush's supporters more confident, and gave Fox New something to talk about until next year. That is my concern. Something needs to be done, but this wasn't it.

I respectfully disagree. His comments have opened public debate on this issue. Speeches like the one you want are made daily on the Senate floors, and it often goes ignored beyond the C-Span crowd. It's not his fault the Elephant Spin Machine is working overtime to change the context in which those comments were made. Respect goes to Durbin for telling it like it is.

 

[Macam]

I respectfully disagree.

Was that a Ken Mehlman impression?

Regarding the Hitler comparisons, well, Jon Stewart doesn't like it either.

 

[Mandark]

Man, I wish I lived in Guileless' fantasy world, in which the administration and the judicial system were technocratic entities that got together to figure out the "best way to deal with" stuff.

Because in my world, the administration (which was elected by people like Guileless), wants to be able to detain whoever it wants without charges, in a facility uninspected by human rights groups. Various courts keep smacking it around for violating some of the most basic foundations of our government, and the administration keeps holding on.

The administration insists that the prisoners should not have any due process. The courts tell them there need to be hearings.

The administration implements lame joke tribunals. A court rules that the prisoners need real hearings.

How many hearings have been given since that ruling on January 31st? None. None in February, none in March, none in April, none in May, none in June, none so far in July.

A suspension of due process is happening right now and has been happening for the last four years. The court rulings don't mean that rights violations have been prevented. The court rulings affirm the position of opposition groups that rights violations are being committed, and have been for the last four years.

You don't want to face this, so you write a fanfic in which the people you voted for haven't actually been in charge and pushing policies that are obviously unconstitutional. That is not a constructive way of dealing with things.

PS Put up or shut up.

 

[Shinobi]

They don't mind starting riots and getting our troops into more dangerous situations. Pretty sad.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

 

[bob_arctor]

Anyone who is more concerned with the accuracy of a metaphor than with our government's belief that it can incarcerate anyone it wants without a scrap of due process is a hypocrite, a coward, a fascist, and an idiot.

If you really care about torture or illegal imprisonment, don't be a pansy who grasps at her pearls every time someone uses strong language to criticize it.

This is completely right. And so obvious it hurts.

Edit: What's scarier is seeing people here at GAF basically fall into that trap: "Oh, he shouldn't have said that! Look at what he said! That's overboard! It kills the discussion!"

 

[gblues]

So then they're either prisoners of war, and should therefore be treated as such under the Geneva Convention codes, or terrorists with evidence linking them to actual crimes, for which they should be put on trial ASAP. There is no reasonable defense of holding people indefinitely based solely on beliefs.

Here's the crazy thing about the Geneva conventions: you have to be a recognized combatant (y'know, have a uniform, that kind of thing) in order for them to apply.

Nathan

 

[Dilbert]

Here's the crazy thing about the Geneva conventions: you have to be a recognized combatant (y'know, have a uniform, that kind of thing) in order for them to apply.

Actually, no.

There is a set of rules in the Geneva Convention which specify treatment for internees, which are civilians restricted to certain areas by an occupying force, as well as civilians in general. Also, when I was attached to a military unit as a civilian during Operation Enduring Freedom, I was issued a Geneva Conventions card which identified me as a non-combatant and enumerated my unique rights if I were to come under fire or be captured. (Not likely considering where I was, but it was procedure.)

 

[AssMan]

You're right. I don't think the media should really report ANYTHING that may incite rioting, anger or even dissent against the administration

When it's out to dissemble the Bush Administration by ANY means necessary, even if it means taking a "source" who thinks they're 100% right. Guess you didn't hear about the Newsweek story, huh? Would you like it if someone made false accusations about one of your relatives doing something bad to someone, and people starts harassing and throwing objects at your relatives? Comparing Gitmo to the Gulag is idiotic.

 

[FightyF]

Could Gitmo be compared to a gulag in the sense that in both cases, people are held without rights, to be tortured?

In this case, isn't the comparison accurate?

 

[Mandark]

Another episode of "Assman pretends to be better informed than more partisan posters," hooray.

Newsweek used a source who had been accurate before, let the Pentagon see the item before they published it (and nobody bothered to deny the story), then later said that the source said he may have been mistaked about which report he read the accusation in, not whether he had seen the accusation in an official report.

This was a minor story until the administration tried to push back and blame anti-American riots on the story, and then it came out that yes, the Koran had been abused several times at Gitmo.

You are dumb as a post. Though if you can explain coherently what Newsweek did wrong and what process they should have followed instead, be my guest.

 

[Diablos]

"And the way they are describing it is unfortunate, and in some places I believe those people will regret having made those kind of comments," Di Rita added.

 

[Macam]

And for the umpteenth time: The riots in Afghanistan riots that caused around 14 deaths were not related to the Newsweek story as acknowledged by military officials on the ground and Hamid Karzai. That was pure WH spin.

 

[Diablos]

Macam: Yeah, but no one will believe what you just said. The White House went out of their way to let the world know that it didn't go down like that. It's unfortunate. But if you were having a political discussion with a group of people and said that, a lot of them would look at you and say you're crazy.